yes. When I received an interview letter from a federal judge, I promptly called to schedule it. However, when I called, he told me he had already filled all of the positions.

I had another judge who sent me a letter stating that he only hires a clerk who were from his home state. [That sounded quasi-illegal to me. Doesn't that violate some clause of the constitution? maybe not]

Luckily, I accepted a very nice clerkship with a judge who actually followed the rules. It worked out great.

3:01 pm July 24, 2007

Percuriam wrote:

also, I know for a fact that some judges in the the USCA for the DC Circuit are notorious for running to hire clerks (almost to the point of hiring them when the clerks are a mere twinkle in their parents' eye)

3:24 pm July 24, 2007

2L at Top 20s school wrote:

I do wonder if there's a big difference between how offers are made to students from Harvard, Chicago, Stanford and Yale, than how they are made to top students at other schools below the top 5 USNWR rankings.

It seems that this behavior only further hurts students not at the Top 5, but it might just as hurtful to Top 5 students.

3:34 pm July 24, 2007

A.Non.E.Mous wrote:

What's the problem? If the judges are acting that way then applicants should just accept every offer as it comes in and then reject the previous offers if the new offer is better.

3:39 pm July 24, 2007

Clerked for New Appointee wrote:

The only way to go is to apply to the new appointees. I did so in 1992 (only 2 weeks after he was confirmed)and snagged a Circuit Ct clerkship.
Maybe that list is more widely distributed now, but I was told that only 100 or so people were competing for the 3 spots my judge had to offer. By the time I was helping him screen candidates two years later (and after he was added to the general list of active CIrcuit judges), the number of applicants was over 500.

3:41 pm July 24, 2007

Applicant wrote:

Once you accept an offer, it is considered really bad form to reject it. Your school career placement office, for one, will hang you by your fingernails for doing it, in addition to being terribly rude to a judge who likely has a relationship with the judge you have accepted second.

3:44 pm July 24, 2007

Anon wrote:

wow, L2L getting billing from the WSJ Law Blogger?!

3:57 pm July 24, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

@Applicant:
Forget career services and bad form. You're no more bound to follow the hiring rules than the judge who has already broken them w/ a nasty exploding offer.
This is a position and name that will be on your resume for decades, don't settle.

4:25 pm July 24, 2007

clerk-tastic! wrote:

It's too bad that the conditions are like that for the well-qualified candidates. It seems to be a bit of a slap in the face for those that work so hard to be in a competitive position, only to have to deal with quirky, self-important judges.
*
I'm a rising 3L at a school that places 20% of its graduates in clerkships. I am not applying for one--mostly because I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than be a clerk--but stories such as these certainly would make me think twice about giving it a shot even if I were interested.
*
Not even mentioned in this article is the growing trend that many candidates resort to applying to hundreds of judges...what a system!

4:26 pm July 24, 2007

Tea Drinker wrote:

I had two Federal clerkships. Each time, I got my offer at the end of the interview and accepted it on the spot. While I am not sure about state court clerkships, for a Federal clerkship with a well respected judge, you are supposed to do your homework and apply for positions that you are willing to accept. There are few things (salary? schedule?) to negotiate anyway.

5:01 pm July 24, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

4:25 - Growing trend? I think it's been pretty common for the past 8-10 years or so.

5:03 pm July 24, 2007

Thomason wrote:

When I clerked, the judge kept a file of acceptable candidates' resumes. When he needed a clerk, they'd call those in the file, and the ones that were available to accept were offered the job. Timing is everything in this business.

5:12 pm July 24, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

There is no reason for judges to be so nasty. A decade ago, I travelled to another city to interview on the same day with Judge A and B. I got a two-year offer from Judge B, so I immediately called Judge A's chambers and asked if Judge A expected to make a decision soon because I preferred a one-year clerkship. It turned out that Judge A had already made offers and had interviewed me just as a backup. But that didn't stop him from calling Judge B, who promptly withdrew the offer because he said I had acted in bad faith. Like Percurium, I ended with another judge who was wonderful, but there is no reason to treat anyone -- especially a student -- that way.

5:13 pm July 24, 2007

I'm with Tea Drinker wrote:

I think candidates should be willing to accept on the spot, as I did. Rejecting an offer, or requesting time to think it over, after writing a letter saying you are interested in the job, is basically telling the judge "I'd like to hold out for a better/more prestigious judge."

5:30 pm July 24, 2007

Loyola2L wrote:

The only offer I'll ever get from a judge is 40 hours of community service in lieu of jail (if I get another ticket for driving my '92 Dodge Neon with an expired sticker).

But my cheap plaintiff's firm only pays me $15-an-hour, $10.50 of which goes directly towards my nearly $100k of student loans, so I can't afford to get my car fixed.

I wish I had to worry about clerkships . . .

5:31 pm July 24, 2007

JS wrote:

I was lucky enough to receive an offer from my first choice. However, I interviewed with several judges on a single trip and one basically accused me of being unethical for having multiple interviews scheduled within a 3-day period. I was quite taken aback by that and was happy to call shortly thereafter and withdraw from consideration.

5:32 pm July 24, 2007

Anon wrote:

So what, Tea Drinker. Do judges have such big egos that they can't fathom that a clerkship with them couldn't be someone's first choice. Putting aside that some judges and/or clerkships are more prestigious, there are much more benign reasons to prefer one clerkship over another, such as location, or length of term. The positions are highly competitive, so of course students have to apply for many different clerkships, yet they are expected to have every single one be their first choice. That's just silly, and the system merely caters to the overblown egos of some of these judges.

5:32 pm July 24, 2007

Anon. wrote:

A simple (and often unobserved) maxim solves the problem. Don't apply to any judges for whom you would not accept an offer on the spot. This may seem harsh, but remember that this is a one-way street. Art. III judges simply are not going to adhere to a "hiring season," but they will remember the names of the prospective clerks who reject their offers.

5:35 pm July 24, 2007

Those who can't sue, judge. wrote:

In a profession overwhelmed by rule breakers who clearly have no respect for the law, what do you call the biggest rule breakers of all?
Judge.

5:37 pm July 24, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

and why shouldn't you be able to hold out for a "better" or more prestigious judge. Facts are facts...it's more prestigious to clerk for a Fed court of appeals judge than a district court judge...but it's also more competitive. That doesn't mean the student would be less willing or unable to clerk for the district judge if he didn't get the COA judge. Judges need to get over themselves

5:40 pm July 24, 2007

Deck wrote:

I have my first fed clerk interview in a few days. Any suggestions?

5:41 pm July 24, 2007

S806 wrote:

I'm going to be applying for clerkships and it makes me uneasy that there is a plan out there but all the good stuff happens secretly and off-track.

Is this the case with COA elite clerkships more than run of the mill district ones?

5:43 pm July 24, 2007

Spoiled, petulant children abuse their power to get their way. They always have, haven't they? wrote:

In addition to my above post (Those who can't sue, Judge), I'll add this observation:
What else would you expect from a thin-skinned, can't bear to be rejected, not qualified to manage anyone, self-important, narcissist?
You see, if the idea that you would be turned down by an entry-level employee completely enrages you, you give someone a super-short fuse, exploding offer. That's pretty simple.
I think this is all that is going on here.
You need to understant the psychology of spoiled children to interpret the behavior of judges doing this.
But these are children who wear dark robes.
Who are fooling the world into believing that they are more than adult.
In fact they are less than adult. They are petulant little babies, who can be downright dangerous when put behind the wheel of any vehicle -- like a courtroom.

5:45 pm July 24, 2007

With Tea Drinker again wrote:

Beggars can't be choosers: law students are entitled to hold out for a better clerkship (or law-firm job, or wife, or party invitation for that matter), but they shouldn't expect such decisions to be risk-free.

5:46 pm July 24, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

Some judges have no interviewing etiquette whatsoever. In law school, a judge hundreds of miles away offered to interview me over the phone. At the time I didn't have much money, but I thought it would make a good impression, so I flew in for a face-to-face. The trip ended up costing me like $900. At the outset, it became clear that we weren't going to be a good fit, but we went forward with the interview. The a-hole didn't even have the consideration to send me "thanks, but no thanks" letter.

6:05 pm July 24, 2007

KDM wrote:

I'm no lawyer, but interview and hire a few people a year and have been on the other side of the desk often enough. I am most surprised by those who say it is somehow bad form to apply to more than one judge, or not to accept on the spot. Why does the judge then get to choose from more than one resume? That's ridiculous! Accepting on the spot only feeds the ego of already egomanical judges. If they are so much of an a-hole to demand immediate acceptance of an offer, it's probably not worth workign for them, no matter how good it would look on your resume.

6:10 pm July 24, 2007

Court wrote:

My judge got over a five hundred applications, and it was overwhelming to sift through all the resumes. Judges are inclined to play by their own rules so that they do not have to suffer through countless interviews and being rejected for "better courts." Judges however are required to report how many people they interview, and who they hire.

6:13 pm July 24, 2007

anon wrote:

The process is miserable. Several friends were spending got stuck with airline tickets to nowhere after their judge called and told them they're hired. I was shafted by a judge who'd finished hiring an hour before my interview. A friend was shutout from an interview by a feeder because he took 20 minutes to return his call. The self-important "feeders" just use the Labor Day mailing system to end-run the actual deadlines, making calls that Wednesday and hiring before the first week ends. It's a draining, exhausting, expensive, childish game from a bunch of old men who think that their "rules" will make it easier, when in reality it just makes the system much more random, condensed, and costly for the aspiring clerk.

6:15 pm July 24, 2007

Third Year wrote:

This is not surprising. In fact, the Federal Clerkship advisor at my law school told us that you never turn down a job offer from a federal judge, so don't apply unless you are prepared to accept the job on the spot! I would be interested to know if other schools follow the same policy.

6:25 pm July 24, 2007

You are underutilizing that car. wrote:

Loyola2L wrote:

"But my cheap plaintiff's firm only pays me $15-an-hour, $10.50 of which goes directly towards my nearly $100k of student loans, so I can't afford to get my car fixed.
I wish I had to worry about clerkships . . .
Comment by Loyola2L"
------------
Now Loyola, why do you think that law firm hired you?
Because you HAVE a car.
Why did they care about that?
BECAUSE, you are SUPPOSED to use that CAR to go forth and stage some fake auto accidents to drum up business for your firm.
Sheesh.
Where the heck did you go to law school?

6:36 pm July 24, 2007

Obvious wrote:

Aren't these federal judges insulting themselves when they fight over 25 year old lawyers? What does it say about the intellectual powers of these judges if they have to fight over clerks?

6:56 pm July 24, 2007

loyola 2L superfan wrote:

more shout-outs to L2L, please!

7:34 pm July 24, 2007

To tea drinker and friends wrote:

I got two clerkship offers, both of which I accepted after 2-3 days of consideration. Making a decision in the abstract, before you've visited a place or met a judge, is quite different than making a concrete decision. Also, both offers occurred earlier than I thought they would.

So I think it is perfectly acceptable to ask for time--some of us don't make important decisions as quickly as others. Or if we are made to, we don't make good decisions, and who wants that.

7:42 pm July 24, 2007

Loyola 2L wrote:

This is the "real" Loyola 2L.
A clerkship is so beyond my reach it's ridiculous. I don't even waste mental energy thinking of clerkships or biglaw. There was a time when I hoped for these things. The day before I learned they weren't meant for tier 2 students. There is a period in the life of every tier 2 student when we are filled with hope, optimism and joy. Back then, no one told us were nobodies if we didn't make top 10%. No one told me my top 25% resume was worthless, solely because it had the words Loyola Law School and not USC Law School on it. Those were the days.

7:55 pm July 24, 2007

Outclassed wrote:

That (7:42) really was L2L. I admit that I (5:30) was an impostor.

8:46 pm July 24, 2007

You've passed the test, imposter -- You're HIRED!!!!! wrote:

Well, the 5:30 L2L imposter should definitely purchase a broken down Dodge whatever, and go to work for a plaintiff's firm scamming fake auto accidents.
Clearly the imposter has fraud in his/her blood.

based on how alot of schools have been fudging their employment stats (claiming 99% employed in 9 months) when only 80-90% actually reported havin jobs, loyola doesn't sound so bad. At least 96.7% had some kind of employment after nine months instead of being "unemployed not seeking employment."

Stop whining-unless you get into a top10, go regional and grades matter everywhere!

In the rest room of a bar I go to, there's a sign saying, "If you loan someone $20 and never hear from them again, it was probably worth the money." The same is true for judges who gives you 35 minutes, or simiilar, to accept their "exploding" offer. One can only imagine that such judges want the very bright but very servile working for them. At least they can count on law schools to churn out hundreds, if not thousands, of them a year.

9:27 am July 25, 2007

Former Clerk wrote:

The judge I worked for was a gentlemanly and smart guy and the clerkship was great. That said, his version of the exploding offer was pretty funny.

Judge: I think I will be making offers pretty soon. If I do make an offer, how much time do you think you would need to think it over.

Me: Well, I have two more weeks of interviews scheduled.

Judge: That would be two long.

Me: Well, I'll be done with my interviews in this city in two days.

Judge: Two days would still be too long.

Me: (finally getting the hint) Well, in that case let me say that I really enjoyed this interview, and if you made me an offer, I would accept.

Judge: Great! In that case, I would like you to come clerk for me.

10:37 am July 25, 2007

Old Timer wrote:

Advice for clerkship interviewers: be nice, respectful, professional and appropriate to everyone and that includes the secretarial staff and the outgoing or career clerks as well as the judge. You may think that wait in the anteroom is just a scheduling glitch, but it is not; it is an interview, those folks have the judge's ear and trust, and if they veto you you will not get the job.

10:57 am July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Why don't any judges post here and relay the process from their point of view? Maybe some of them just want to interview three candidates and want it to be lawyers who will accept their offer.
Why couldn't you have a central web site where applicants could post their resumes for the judges to pick from? If you had a central resume depository, it could also include special considerations such as timing and geography preferences. Then, the applicant would also get a sense of the competition.
Now that they are instituting video conferencing in some federal courts, couldn't the equipment also be used for interviews?

11:06 am July 25, 2007

Future Clerk wrote:

The advice that applicants should only apply to judges they want to work for is wholly unrealistic and is simply not a solution to the problem. You can research a judge's background and opinions (which you should pre-interview), but you simply can't research someone's personality and you certainly can't do all this research for every judge you apply to. Most people apply to as many as 50 (if you're at a top tier school) or 100 or more (if you're at a lower ranked school) judges. It's just not possible to make these types of decisions beforehand. And you shouldn't have to. The interview is for gauging personality fit, as is the case in any job search.

My only advice is that if you really want to clerk, you have to just give yourself over to the process. The only control you can exert is in putting your application together and in the mail. After that, it's a crapshoot. If you really get a bad vibe fom a judge (which I did), withdraw from consideration to avoid awkwardness upon receiving an offer (which I did). And then accept the first offer you think you can live with. I later got a clerkship with a wonderful judge whose past clerks all adore him. So I got lucky. But you CAN control what you get out of the clerkship, even one that's no so great. Make it a learning experience no matter what.

12:00 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

To "Future Clerk"

This process sounds very expensive and time consuming. Potentially this bars many lawyers who would be able from applying and therefore results in the judiciary being more insular.
Procedure is supposed to be transparent. Why can't you have open disclosure about expectations to the greatest extent possible? Maybe the process of identifying the issues in the clerkship relationship will somehow improve them. Maybe some of the research could be automated by computer connections as ECF becomes more detailed, and then there could be an agreement to limit the amount of hours. Maybe that would bring in more parents, handicapped clerks, or part-time care givers and result in a subtly greater understanding of issues they have observed in real life experience.
If you only choose from a pool of applicants with unlimited time and money, you choose from those with limited life experience.

12:19 pm July 25, 2007

Pender wrote:

"If you only choose from a pool of applicants with unlimited time and money, you choose from those with limited life experience."

Not really. Anyone who has a shot at a decent clerkship can get a great job in private practice, and most will. If they don't have the funds on hand, it's a simple matter to borrow against the expectation of future earnings, especially since it needs only be to the tune of a couple thousand dollars.

Kay, remove yourself from this thread because you don't know what you're talking about. I can assure you that your comments are not helpful, just uninformed.

2:07 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

To Future Clerk

What in my posts at 12 and 10:57 was in accurate and why do you think so? It sounds to me like you think you have a guarantee on a federal clerkship and don't want any additional competition.

I have related experiences in my personal database. I interacted very unpleasantly with a former federal clerk, who had an attitude contrary to the Rights of Citizens as I found them written down. Consequently, I have been reading about federal clerks and spent a lot of time trying to understand their behavioral modes.

I truly believe in the power of cross-disciplinary experience. I majored in city planning and as one of the requirements there was a course in manpower planning. At the time I took the course I was under 20 and had no management experience. But I find that I think of the course at least once a month. It involved breaking the job function down into lists, listing the people by their attributes, and matching them up.

I had a very traumatic experience with the judiciary. Consequently I put a lot of effort into thinking about it. The people need redress for their injuries. The Internet and all aspects of our culture are filled with evidence that too often their attainment of that redress is obstructed or delayed. How can the system have improved outcome? One way is for suggestions to be generated, evaluated and acted upon. Having more diversity in the roles of the judicial department means that some individual is more likely to recognize the real issue of a matter or suggest a way to perfect the delivery of due process. One way to quickly increase the diversity of opinion in the judicial department is thru the procedures for selecting federal clerks. This is faster than any other way because the other employment categories are long term.

How many disabled federal clerks are there? How many who are parents? How many who are parents of disabled children? How many who were ever prisoners? How many first generation immigrants? How many multi-language?

2:29 pm July 25, 2007

Herbert Read wrote:

I think we can leave the personal characteristics and life experiences of clerks outside of this discussion. They are best taken blandly, ideally somewhat limited socially, and adept at tapping out the full range of tonal sequences of neutral principles dictated by their ruling judges. Then we get opinions and the courts move on. It's pretty straightforward.

2:35 pm July 25, 2007

Enough Already wrote:

Loyola 2L, you are defeatist, and you engender no sympathy from serious people. You went to a two-tiered law school and aren't top ten because you're not good enough. Period. You are therefore not entitled to a biglaw like the rest of us. Never mind that you had unrealistic expectations about your role in the profession. You'll fall into your proper place on the food chain and deal with it accordingly. Until then, enough already.

3:26 pm July 25, 2007

kay_Sieverding wrote:

To 2:29

We are talking about the same courts that affirmed racial segregation in transportation. The clerks 100 years ago may have been bland and limited socially and what they thought were neutral consequences weren't neutral from everyone's perspectives. Now our society is more diverse than ever. The way that people experience the law is strongly class related don't you think? Certain experiences almost never happen to certain groups of people.

Did you study poetry? Where?

3:36 pm July 25, 2007

Um . . . WHAT? wrote:

Kay, What the HE!! are you talking about? What do ANY of your comments have to do with the topic of this particular article?

Seriously, you sound like (and probably are) a moron who has WAY too much time on her hands.

3:44 pm July 25, 2007

Current clerk wrote:

Rules are different for alumni applications. More and more judges are hiring applicants who have already graduated from law school -- and the law clerk hiring schedule does not apply to those applicants. In those cases, therefore, which are many, the judges aren't breaking the rules.

3:50 pm July 25, 2007

It's old wrote:

3:36, you are clearly new around here

4:18 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

This subject is about federal clerkships. As you know after the slaves were freed and the 14th amendment was passed, the U.S. continued to have racial segregation in rail transport and that was upheld by the Supreme Court and various appellate courts. Didn't they have law clerks then who participated in the preparation of those decisions? Were they mostly from upper class backgrounds? Were any of them from families of freed slaves?
It sounds like the process of matching clerks with judges ensures that mostly upper income or privileged lawyers get the experience. Isn't it possible that no one in the judge's work teams have had experiences that many citizens face and which form a backdrop to cases?
It sounds like the long hours (which I believe are currently a feature of the clerkship job) result in very few involved parents or parents of needy children getting the positions. In view of the fact that many appellate opinions are very short, it is only natural to wonder if public policy issues were ignored. For instance, why did the pro se parents of handicapped children have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get relief? If a clerk had a handicapped child or was handicapped, wouldn't they have been more aware of the need for parents to some times represent their children? How many children didn't get the education that they needed while that case (Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1461151 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 21, 2007) was pending?
Given that judges and clerks claim to have so much to read, isn't some prior knowledge of the subjects helpful? Isn't that why they have specialized patent clerks? If an engineering background helps one be a better patent clerk, couldn't experiences with prisons, health, discrimination, extortion, unions, etc., improve other types of decisions?
Maybe hiring clerks who have degrees, work, or personal experiences in medicine, city planning, education, criminal justice etc. will improve those decisions without setting up more specialty courts.
The ABA web site says:
Internships are unpaid part-time positions. Some schools give credit for internships. Interns can expect to work on a variety of assignments similar to those of judicial clerks, including general legal research, preparation of bench memos, opinion drafting and special projects. Each judge has different needs and expectations.http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/patentprep.html
Maybe the judges would get more effective assistance per taxpayer dollar and more people would be educated if internships were funded but at a lower salary than clerks performing similar assignments and there were many more of them. What if there were judicial teams and they tried to have members with selected experiences and expertise?
There was a Minnesota state judge who went to jail for some 5 years and he was interviewed about his biography and book. He said that he was a judge for years and didn't realize what jail was like. Maybe each team should actually include an ex prisoner who can relate from first hand experience.

4:58 pm July 25, 2007

Uh . . . WHAT? wrote:

I rest my case.

You are arguing about the credentials of candidates that federal judges hire, which is NOT what this article is about. This article is about the fact that federal judges are breaking the rules in the way they offer positions to cadidates. These are two entirely different subjects. You truly are an idiot.

5:50 pm July 25, 2007

Tea Drinker wrote:

I propose that the WSJ check bar licenses or law school registration before letting anyone like Ms. Sieverding post anything on this blog.

5:52 pm July 25, 2007

The swine are again trampling Kay's pearls. Another day on the law blog. wrote:

Kay,
The problem with most posters here is that they are current or future tradesmen -- the modern equivalent of the union tradesmen of yesteryear. They are joining this guild called "law" because they are not terribly ambitious, not terribly smart, not used to thinking for themselves, not good at math or science, not good at dealing with change (except taking that change in your purse), and basically, dependent thinkers who have high affiliation needs, and hope to survive by sucking up to some existing institution/s.
You are a smart, down-to-earth, common-sense, original thinking person who has an excellent grasp of details and is able to combine different knowledge bases you possess to formulate and put forth good ideas for solutions.
These bums are a collection of hacks who are looking for a shortcut to a six-figure income, and maybe 1 out of 500 of them at best, will ever see a 7-figure income, and only then, because they happened to toil away at a firm which made it big, or sacrificed all for 20 years at a firm which had already made it big.
Bottom line: you are throwing pearls before swine, as in:
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7-6)
In any case, I support you and admire you for going at these swine. Your ideas are good, you are an idealist, and you are persistent -- just the type of REAL American which lawyers and judges can't deal with -- because they are not.

6:04 pm July 25, 2007

Tea Drinker had better take some smart pills right quick. wrote:

Hey Tea Drinker,

I have observed your posts and Kay's, the former over longer period of time than the latter.
Would you like to accept a little challenge?
How about if I pay the expenses of both you and Kay to sit for
1. a randomly selected bar exam (i.e., any state in the U.S., randomly selected), and
2. the WAIS IQ test (or Miller analogies test).
Who do you think, by their failure in both challenges, would get their arrogant little smirk removed from their face faster than same could be done by pouring boiling tea onto said smirk?
You Tea Drinker.
You are one of the least insightful posters who has persisted in this forum in the past 24 months.
Kay has more brains in her pinky, and more legal knowledge in the fingernail of that pinky than you ever have or ever will exhibit in this forum.
Want to take up the challenge?

6:10 pm July 25, 2007

Uh . . . WHAT? wrote:

Hey, "Swine" - we would all be a lot more receptive to Kay's so-called "pearls" if she would respond in a way that is relevant to the articles to which she is responding. She is apparently incapable of doing so, which leads me to question just how "excellent [her] grasp of details" actually is (and yours, too, for that matter.) Can't wait for another "brilliant" comment from Kay and her moronic following.

6:15 pm July 25, 2007

P.S. To the great condescender -- is that Earl Grey, or Manure in that tea bag sir? wrote:

P.S.
Tea Drinker, in case you lack the human insight to see the bullying behavior inherent in your 5:50 post, you are essentially proposing an exclusionary rule based on possession of a credential which you know, from public information, Kay does not have, and you know from private information, you do have. Well isn't that brave and powerful of you. Dolt.
I am proposing an opportunity for a merit-based humuliation of you before the eyes of all in this blog.
You are a typically arrogant example of why the people of this country despise lawyers.
Your field is far from the brightest, contributes little, takes way too much, and your profession weilds "power" wildly disproportionate to your abilities, your education, and most of all, your sense of moral responsibily towards others.
Take up the challenge Tea-boy, and find out how underpowered you are in terms of your basic neurological resource, and even the flexiblity of that resource to apply knowledge of law in one state to another.

6:19 pm July 25, 2007

So you also like to bully. Fair enough. Bring your little brain and let's see how it does... wrote:

Hey, "Uh...WHAT?",
I'll add you to the challenge put forth to Tea Drinker.

6:24 pm July 25, 2007

Uh . . . WHAT? wrote:

I'll gladly take that challenge. BRING IT. (Oh, and by the way, will YOU be taking the challenge? What . . .no? I didn't think so.)

7:14 pm July 25, 2007

Don't Feed the Trolls wrote:

The typical Net Troll is a teenager with nothing to do and unlimited time to do it. Such a teenager can Google up a name like Kay Sieverding to make himself seem "legit" (if that's really the right term). He probably has a bunch of browser windows open, and the one that replies to his messages gets all his attention.

Reply to him and your forum is toast. Ignore him, he plays elsewhere.

Just a thought.

7:55 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

This blog claimed to be partially about generating original content. It's not supposed to be an essay exam and if the subject moved from bad judge interview stories to selection and use of law clerks, why is that a problem for anyone? Would you rather discuss bad judge management stories if there are no more comments on bad judge interview techniques? Selection and use of law clerks is a related and more positive topic than "bad judges".

8:41 pm July 25, 2007

Are Longer, Wordier Fake Posting Names Directly Correlated With IQ, Bar Passage and Brilliance? Or Just With Personality Disorders? wrote:

Just askin'.

8:55 pm July 25, 2007

Oh YES, I was definitely planning to attend the party! wrote:

Uh...WHAT?
I would be delighted to participate. May I give you a little clue as to what you might be walking into?
Scores above 99%ile on
PSAT(=National Merit Scholar), SAT, and a certain graduate school exam which we will just call the _AT. Also above 99%ile on the WAIS.
And by the way "Uh . . . WHAT?", in my business, success is often driven by hiring the brightest possible people, thus over time, one learns how to discern true intelligence from over-confident bluster. But at the same time, I deal with loads of lawyers of all different specialities. IP. Contracts. Torts. Immigration. You name it.
This experience has brought me to the conclusion that there are SOME, but extremely FEW, extraordinarily bright people in the field of law.
however, in reading the posts of yourself and the bullying Tea Twit, I have come to the conclusion that neither one of you are raising the average IQ of the legal profession, which by most studies, ain't actually that high to start with, and is steadily declining as ever-new swarms of "lawyers" like you appear to feed at edge of that sewer which the American legal system has become through your cumulative efforts.

9:02 pm July 25, 2007

You just failed your own IQ test Mr. 8:41pm poster wrote:

Dear July 25, 2007 at 8:41 pm poster,
The only person here in this sub-thread who doesn't use a "fake posting name" is Kay Sieverding. You who bash her are all hiding behind fake names you MORON.

9:08 pm July 25, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

P.S. (to my 9:02pm post)
AND the latest vicious, cowardly and ANONYMOUS attack upon Kay by Tea Twit was made entirely on the basis of information the little TWIT gleaned from the web -- a gleaning enabled by the fact of her having honestly and courageously used her own name.
I suspect if you and Tea Twit identified yourselves, we would all have a good laugh at your extremely mediocre accomplishments and natural endowments.

9:30 pm July 25, 2007

I Almost Forgot That The Only Thing More Persuasive Than A Really Long Posting Name is ALL CAPS! wrote:

Thanks for the reminder!

10:29 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

The Wall Street Journal could change the format. They could verify all email addresses and demand a disclosure as to whether or not the posters are attorneys and if they are lawyers, what is their bar license number.
The Wall Street Journal or posters could also invite people to comment. A column such as this would benefit from having judges' comments. I would like to see comments from court clerks and U.S. attorneys identified as such. I'd also like to see surveys.
I used a report that the ABA did and I surveyed all the participants just by looking up their contact information on the Internet. I just emailed to them and asked them why they didn't address a certain subject and they emailed right back to me. It was easy.
Maybe we could contribute money to hire an intern and then instruct him or her to research subjects we are interested in. This person could be effective acting in the name of the Wall Street Journal. The blog could have suggestions for articles.
I think this is a really great opportunity for participative democracy.

10:33 pm July 25, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

P.S. to 4:58

You say " the fact that federal judges are breaking the rules in the way they offer positions to cadidates." Please expand on this as the article and the other posts don't go to this subject in any detail.

11:43 pm July 25, 2007

enough already wrote:

Please WSJ, for all of us who enjoy reading this blog, please consider limiting the blogs to Journal subscribers so that it can return to a higher plane. I couldn't care less about whether you are a lawyer or not. These posts are evidence of what happens when anyone can post with no cost exacted. A classic race to the bottom of uninformed and condescending blather. Let the silly posters start their own blog. Readers of the Journal expect more.

11:52 pm July 25, 2007

ok yea, like whatever wrote:

boringgggggggg

12:35 am July 26, 2007

anon wrote:

Lawsuit-happy woman now in contempt of court
By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
February 3, 2006
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the arrest of Kay Sieverding after she failed to show up in his court to explain why she broke her promise to drop numerous lawsuits in exchange for her release from jail.
Colorado U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the former Steamboat Springs resident, now of Wisconsin, is in contempt and that he won't let her out of jail again until he sees certified copies of documents dismissing the cases.

"The court no longer believes her or credits her promises," Nottingham said.

Her husband, David Sieverding, flew from Wisconsin Thursday to appear before Nottingham.

"Did she tell you why she chose to stay in Wisconsin?" Nottingham asked Sieverding about his wife's absence.

"Ah," said Sieverding. "I think she just said she decided to stay in Wisconsin. I've tried to avoid talking about this with her."

The people Kay Sieverding has sued now want to collect more than $100,000 in attorneys' fees for having to defend themselves in those actions.

Nottingham jailed the woman in September for refusing to drop the suits, which stem from a dispute with her Steamboat Springs neighbors. She filed the suits without a lawyer.

Sieverding sued the neighbors, city officials, the local newspaper, the Colorado Bar Association and the American Bar Association, among others. When she has lost in one court, she has filed in another.

Sieverding, 50, told Nottingham on Jan. 4 that she would drop the suits if he would let her out of jail. But she didn't drop them, and earlier this month filed documents in the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting Nottingham's order.

Outside the courtroom, David Sieverding said he has tried to persuade his wife to drop the lawsuits, but said his wife is very stubborn.

"I just don't understand that level of stubbornness, to be honest with you," he said.

I fail to see what you all do not understand about the attitude of these judges. These are the same guys that if they think you are not paying them the respect (homage) their inflated egos are due, they hold you in contempt. Realistically, it is difficult to appeal contempt, as they generally close ranks and band together against the riff-raff. There is no other place in our society where anyone has this much uncontested power, including the Federal Executive Branch. You can find some good ones, but most are by and large, ego maniacs. Get used to it, you will be dealing with them for your entire lives.

That blog quotes defense bills for secret ex parte conferences with federal judges and clerks and refers the reader to downloadable scans of them.

The RMN web site will not let me comment on their articles about me. My husband said he was misquoted. The U.S. code says that U.S. citizens can only be held if An Act of Congress was cited and none was. I was jailed without an independent prosecutor or a finding of contempt in the presence of the court. The jailing was at the request of Christopher P. Beall, an agent of Mutual Insurance of Berumda and Jerome C. Schaeffer, and David Brougham, billing Lloyds of London and Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency. I was told in court that I was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing and I was not allowed to cross examine my accusers. I never received a warrant for the 4 months and there was no sentence and no bail. A contract under duress of jail is invalid according to the 158 pages on unlawful imprisonment in American Jurisprudence. The RMN article does not disclose that they are also represented by Christopher P. Beall and apparently insured by Mutual Insurance of Bermuda. Mutual Insurance refused to provide a copy of the insurance policy as did Lloyds of London although they are required disclosures under rule 26(a). The 10th Circuit has since held that they have no authority to jail people for filing civil lawsuits in other circuits. I don't believe there is a basis in law for jailing anyone for filing anything non fraudulent in any court. I think that is criminal witness intimidation as prohibited by U.S.C. title 18 chapter 74 section 1512. I think I am legally defined as a "crime victim".

1:41 pm July 26, 2007

There is more severe issues wrote:

Judges need clerks who are just knowledgeable enough to do while also lacking enough not to know when they shouldn't

Many things never make it to the full review for time sake that get an Honor's signature that obviously are not statutory compliant.

It is commonly discussed how to word a brief and submit in such a manner that it makes it over the hurdle of the clerks!

Strange webs are weaved.

2:07 pm July 26, 2007

economiser wrote:

This is very interesting commentary on the economics of self preservation. I would hope each of these judges would agree that they would like to see the best candidates matched to the best opportunities as this is best for society. However, when given a personal stake, they prove no better than the criminal who steals because he is hungry. Without any question these judges are imposing a net loss on society. But there is a collective action problem. Everyone must abide by the rules in order for it to be optimal for anyone to abide by them.

2:54 pm July 26, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

What if a former federal appellate clerk who is the lead defense attorney sends a bill for conferring with the clerk of the circuit as to how an appeal should be handled? Is that legitimate?

3:00 pm July 26, 2007

Fight.the.corrupt@gmail.com a/k/a KinMapper wrote:

My sole response to these judicial administrative faux pas's is to ask:
.
When will the USA insist our (state in my case, but federal as well) judges, from the bench, obey our nation's federal laws, as is now required as to all other law enforcement officials with NO formal legal education?
.
That prosecution of judges who have committed clear and unquestionably intentional criminal acts from the bench remains my goal!

3:11 pm July 26, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

According to the FBI web site, deprivation of rights under color of law, U.S.C. title 18 section 242, and conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law, section 241, do apply to judges.
When I applied to the 10th Circuit for crime victim status, however, they said that they would not let me file anything in the 10th Circuit if I complained that being jailed without a statement of probable cause of a crime being committed and after an assistant U.S. attorney specifically stated that the government was not a party to the warrant was a crime. I'm really upset about this. I think it was kidnapping by the government. There is all this controversy about how suspected terrorists are treated but I am a U.S. citizen with no criminal record and my father is a World War II veteran.

4:10 pm July 26, 2007

Fight.the.corrupt@gmail.com a/k/a KinMapper wrote:

To Ms./Mr. Kay Sieverding:

I can not reply to your specific issues except to say that many rules of procedure exist in court proceedings. Federal judges usually play by these rules and do so with little impropriety, at least compared to local and state judges. But you also quote legal code that I have cited in many posts here and elsewhere citing to no avail as lawyers do not like to learn of lawyers doing bad in large numbers. Run either e-nom-de-guerrier of my post and you will see much much more.

You know the law on some of this...
I know the law on some of this...

but Alberto Gonzales, and John Ashcroft and Janet Reno before our current US AG AG, have hidden from their duties to prosecute those (a large number of state judges at least as to my state of Florida) who have no excuse for greater violations of federal criminal code and U.S. constitutional law than any of the law enforcement
officers (who often had no concepts of a federal law violation possibility, and the state judges of course do know generally of your cited federal code sections).
.
Why is this set of failures the case?
Why is this not one of the major national scandals?
Why do lawyers blindly verbally defend unprosecuted criminals when their crimes are beyond doubt, particularly those criminals who are members of a state judiciary?

4:10 pm July 26, 2007

B wrote:

I had one Judge cancel my interview after I had already bought non-refundable airfare from overseas.

Another went ahead and had me fly from overseas, only to tell me just before I left to not expect much because she "thinks she already found someone."

4:15 pm July 26, 2007

KinMapper a/k/a Fight.the.corrupt@gmail.com wrote:

Oh yeah, and my father was a WW II veteran and retired as a Lt.Col. in the USAF.

If you want I will send you copies of competing letters from the DoJ denying and admitting to their duty to prosecute judges, within one month of each other, with my name eliminated. Then I will tell you about the refusal to do the first step of living up to the known duties and blaming it on the FBI, who DoJ says must act first, before DoJ can look at the illegal activities in court!!

My response to the non-communicative FBI is at my MySpace page but spitting in the eye of the FBI will not get the FBU to stick their necks out, much less respond, on a matter decided by the FBI Director and his boss at DoJ and his boss at 1600 PA Ave.

6:09 pm July 26, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Dear 4:15
How did you get a letter from DOJ stating what they would or would not prosecute? Do you think they will prosecute an ex federal appellate clerk?

10:00 pm July 26, 2007

v wrote:

Some of the posters here have such a sense of entitlement it's sickening.

12:08 am July 27, 2007

anon wrote:

Kinmapper and Kay,
Have you two considered the possibility that you may just be kooks? You're ruining the board with your bizarre comments. No one relates to a woman angry at a system which wouldn't let her file frivolous lawsuits, or a guy making ridiculous claims against the judges.

12:36 am July 27, 2007

Wow wrote:

KAY SIEVERDING; DAVID SIEVERDING; ED SIEVERDING; TOM SIEVERDING,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, and their insurance company (true name unknown); CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO, a municipality; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, and their insurance company (true name unknown); JANE BENNETT, private citizen acting in conspiracy with City policy makers; KEVIN BENNETT, individually and in capacity as City council member; KEN BRENNER, individually and in capacity as a City council member; DAVID BROUGHAM, individually and in capacity as apparent City insurance agent (for CIRSA); CIRSA, insurance for the City; INSURANCE AGENT, other than Brougham, and decision makers for CIRSA (true name unknown); KATHY CONNELL, individually and as employed as City council member; DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLC; JAMES ENGLEKEN, individually and in capacity as City council member; ART FIEBING, individually and as employed as City assistant chief of police; SANDY FIEBING, individually and as the City code enforcement officer; DANIEL FOOTE, individually and in capacity as assistant City attorney; JAMES GARRECHT, in capacity as district court judge (for injunctive relief only since he is immune from suit for damages); J. D. HAYS, individually and in capacity as City director of public safety; HALL & EVANS, LLC, and their insurance; JAMES "SANDY" HORNER, individually and as attorney working for Klauzer & Tremaine and his insurance company; PAUL HUGHES, individually and in capacity and City manager; KLAUZER & TREMAINE, a law firm, and insurance (true name unknown); RANDALL KLAUZER, individually and in capacity as an attorney and his insurance company; CHARLES LANCE, individually and in capacity as former district attorney and his insurance; ANTHONY LETTUNICH, individually and in capacity as City attorney and his insurance; PAUL R. MCLIMANS, individually and in capacity as a district attorney and his insurance company; WENDIE SCHULENBURG, (a.k.a. Rooney), individually and in capacity as City planning services director and her insurance; MELINDA SHERMAN, former assistant City attorney, individually, and in capacity, and their insurance; KERRY ST. JAMES, individually and in capacity as deputy or assistant district attorney and his insurance; JAMES B.F. OLIPHANT, Bennett's attorney and purchaser of plaintiff's home; SUZANNE SCHLICHT, individually and in capacity as newspaper publisher and her insurance; STEAMBOAT PILOT & TODAY NEWSPAPER, (Worldwest Limited Liability Company), and insurance (true name unknown); ARIANTHE STETTNER, individually and in capacity as City council member; PAUL STRONG, individually and in capacity as City council member and his insurance company; RICHARD TREMAINE, individually and in capacity as an attorney and his insurance company; JAMES WEBER, individually and in capacity as City public works director and his insurance company; P. ELIZABETH WITTEMYER, individually and in capacity as deputy district attorney and her insurance,

Defendants-Appellees.

12:50 am July 27, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

On the current WSJ law blog Moody's article, some apparent defense agents tried to sabotage my postings, and when I posted seriously on the subject of Moody's policies, they didn't follow up.
As far as my lawsuit being "frivolous", I itemized $400,000 of economic damages, which the defense didn't object to and I claimed recognized torts of extortion, first amendment retaliation, conspiracy to damage reputation, damages due to constitutional violations etc. Most WSJ readers, who had a valuable property like we did, would not like their neighbors fencing off and converting the street to private ownership and building extra dwelling units in their front yard. The defense did not dispute that they misrepresented the facts to the 10th Circuit. I emailed this blog to them this afternoon and invited their comments but unless you work for them, they have no rebuttals.
As far as "KinMapper" goes, I have never met or talked to him and am not aware of the details of his claims. However, he probably wouldn't have gone to so much effort if he didn't have a grievance. The judge who started my problems, Joel Thompson, was accused by the DEA of living with a cocaine trafficker. See an article published by my defendants:http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2001/aug/24/attorneys_exchange_accusations/
"McLimans also suggests Feldmann told Townsend of a federal drug investigation that resulted in the arrest of 14th Judicial District Judge Joel S. Thompson's live-in girlfriend, 36-year-old Billie Vreeman...McLimans said he suspects Feldmann gave...sensitive information about the Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team... an investigation into how he used a GRAMNET expense fund...Feldmann himself recently was hired by another Steamboat firm, Klauzer and Tremaine."
That firm, Klauzer and Tremaine, claimed I "molested" the wife of the local city council president (whose lawyer David Brougham did not deny that he was jailed for possession of cocaine with intent to sell) even though the woman herself said, under oath, there was "no offensive touching", I hadn't been following her, and we had little contact. I didn't have a chance to defend on the molestation charges because they weren't made in a complaint. The local judge just decided that I had "molested" her. He said that I wouldn't be able to find a constitutional lawyer to hire.
How would you like it if a judge ruled that you or your wife had molested someone while denying you confrontation on the charges or any evidence at all? Is that the American way?
David Brougham claimed to the Denver Post that I was upset that the Bennetts had built a "garage" and a "shed" but the "shed" according to the building department had a kitchen and bathroom. The "garage", which is two stories with multiple rooms, shows on Google Maps aerial photos, at 701 Princeton Ave, Steamboat Springs, CO, as being similar in size to neighboring homes. In Colorado, adjoining neighbors have a legal right to rely on the stability of the zoning which in this case was low-density residential.

1:45 am July 27, 2007

anon wrote:

"some apparent defense agents tried to sabotage my postings"
I'm not a "defense agent" Kay. I'm just a reader of this blog and I don't like what you and Kinmapper are doing to it.

5:44 am July 27, 2007

to anon by Kinmapper wrote:

This topic was on judges behaving badly in their administrative duties. Kay and I posted on judges behaving badly from the bench.

Basically on topic and you posted on how to protect the image of the judiciary, on their behaving potentially criminally badly, by trying to silence the messengers.

My seven justices, approved the issuance of an order including this ridiculous and borderline criminal admission on the part of the presiding judge in the Supreme Court trial proceedings as to me and my wrongdoings in making claims of constitutional rights that you of course know exist or do not in civil and criminal court matters:

" Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."

[Right to be heard = Right to submit

and "not to be allowed to be heard"--admirable Bill Clintonesque logic and word mis-parsing, but repugnant to American standards]

This blog is to educate lawyers, law students and others as to happening in and out of court. The bad behavior of judges, many judges being involved here, is a perfect place to compare judges adminstrative misbehavior with judicial criminal behavior.

Let me add that on my appellate oral arguments [I was an Appellate Advocacy Editor in law school], the three panel judges invited all but myself for tea and crumpets or the like in privacy, immediately after the oral arguments concluded.

More judical misbehavior, unethical particularly where I made my exception to such private meetings by the judicial panel with my opposition known immediately.

The Florida judiciary is out of control committing patent crimes, knowing that judges are still being protected by the appellate levels stateand federal and the federal levels of our justice department and its arm the FBI.

Surely you cannot claim that ex parte meetings with opposing counsel to socialize is not an example of judges behaving extra-ordinarily bad.
Judges has foolish oafish emperors with no concern about the "appearance of impropriety" or impermissible ex parte contacts (initiated by the judges themselves!).
[Be assured a timely motion to disqualify was filed (and denied of course)]

5:44 am July 27, 2007

to anon by Kinmapper wrote:

This topic was on judges behaving badly in their administrative duties. Kay and I posted on judges behaving badly from the bench.

Basically on topic and you posted on how to protect the image of the judiciary, on their behaving potentially criminally badly, by trying to silence the messengers.

My seven justices, approved the issuance of an order including this ridiculous and borderline criminal admission on the part of the presiding judge in the Supreme Court trial proceedings as to me and my wrongdoings in making claims of constitutional rights that you of course know exist or do not in civil and criminal court matters:

" Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."

[Right to be heard = Right to submit

and "not to be allowed to be heard"--admirable Bill Clintonesque logic and word mis-parsing, but repugnant to American standards]

This blog is to educate lawyers, law students and others as to happening in and out of court. The bad behavior of judges, many judges being involved here, is a perfect place to compare judges adminstrative misbehavior with judicial criminal behavior.

Let me add that on my appellate oral arguments [I was an Appellate Advocacy Editor in law school], the three panel judges invited all but myself for tea and crumpets or the like in privacy, immediately after the oral arguments concluded.

More judical misbehavior, unethical particularly where I made my exception to such private meetings by the judicial panel with my opposition known immediately.

The Florida judiciary is out of control committing patent crimes, knowing that judges are still being protected by the appellate levels stateand federal and the federal levels of our justice department and its arm the FBI.

Surely you cannot claim that ex parte meetings with opposing counsel to socialize is not an example of judges behaving extra-ordinarily bad.
Judges has foolish oafish emperors with no concern about the "appearance of impropriety" or impermissible ex parte contacts (initiated by the judges themselves!).
[Be assured a timely motion to disqualify was filed (and denied of course)]

5:47 am July 27, 2007

KinMapper KinMapper wrote:

Sorry about the double post,
an example of my mouse behaving badly with more than a little help from its controller.

6:05 am July 27, 2007

Expose.the.rot.of.the.corrupt@gmail.com a/k/a Kinmapper wrote:

As to another post namely:

Comment by The swine are again trampling Kay's pearls. Another day on the law blog. - July 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm

all in law should read the comments and should tread lightly upon the observations of this poster.

I propose that the WSJ check bar licenses or law school registration before letting anyone like Ms. Sieverding post anything on this blog.

Comment by Tea Drinker - July 25, 2007 at 5:50 pm
=====
Free speech, but only for lawyers and law students!!!

10:03 am July 27, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Dear Anon, "tea drinker" and "V"
Everyone who blogs has some sort of agenda. Apparently, some people are paid to blog.
I am a person with pride in myself and my knowledge and intellect. I enjoy policy analysis. For 25 years, I have written many letters to the editor about various subjects. One time I wrote to the first President Bush and suggested that they consider health care vouchers. The White House called me back to discuss this and then used it as their idea (with my permission). I got a big kick out of this.
I also tried to improve the world in other ways. I tried repeatedly to get Israel to defend the imperiled Moslems in Bosnia so that they would not be perceived as blanket anti-Moslem. I called their embassy in Washington to try and convince them.
One motivation that I have to blog in my own name is that I have been subjected to defamation as to my character and my knowledge. This really bothers me. The assistant editor of the Steamboat Pilot and their lawyer told me that they can print whatever they want about me and I can't stop it. Their articles are seen by my neighbors, friends of my parents etc. Everyone I know uses the Internet. My theory is that blogging in my own name helps to dilute this.
If you look at the history of my blogs on the WSJ, I never veered from the topic on hand until someone posted articles or information about me that I dispute. For instance, in this blog, I was on topic on 7/25 at 4:18 p.m. Then tea drinker attacked me at 5:50 p.m. Then either you or another anon posted a totally irrelevant and disputed article about me at 12:35 a.m.
I posted repeatedly on the article about the NBA referee, no one insulted me, and the subject never went to me. I posted on the article about the lawsuit against Moody's. I had previously published a book concerning Moody's and had presented there. After I asked about Standard & Poor's ratings of mortgage-backed securities, some anonymous blogger started trying to sabotage me. Maybe that was you. After I dealt with that, I brought the subject back to Moody's and Standard and Poor's.
Many or most people in this country are directly affected by the state of the legal profession and many are unhappy about this. Lawyers don't have a monopoly over discussion on the subject. They are generally biased in their perceptions of the solutions because of their personal financial stake. An analogy is communities with problems of affordable housing that don't discuss manufactured housing because the discussion is dominated by buildings of on sight stick and mortar housing. Lawyers also experience law differently than other people. I had legal problems with my previous neighbors and was a victim of extortion. I sold two properties, both to lawyers, and they then sold them again, both to lawyers. The lawyers were able to deal with my ex neighbor because they were lawyers. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to deal with your neighbor and your city government.
Because of my legal problems, I have spent most of the last 6 years studying law. I am a fast reader and I read a lot in 6 years. In fact, I recently received a Freedom of Information Act document from the U.S. Marshals that said that one of our defense lawyers, David Brougham, sent the Marshals to look for me at the U of WI law library, telling them that he thought that was where I spent most of my time.
I seriously considered going to law school when I was in my 20's. At MIT, I took three law courses: construction law, environmental law, and constitutional law. The professor of my constitutional law course recommended me for graduate school. I was paid to research land-banking and used the Harvard Law Library to do that. One of my jobs involved writing portions of prospectus statements. I was employed as a senior systems analyst at the NYSE Department of Regulation and Surveillance.

Judges can even commit patent crimes from the bench and be protected and suffer no consequences.

Except for angering judges who I had a legal opinion, mine, that they had broken known federal laws of action or 18 USC 4 relating to inaction, I had an unblemished record with my clients over 25 years of practice. Irrelevant for the corrupt judges and their trial lawyer accomplices, or vice versa as to who is whose accomplice, are running the asylum of The Florida Bar and The Florida judiciary.

I was a National Merit Scholar, a spelling champion (there are more National Merit Scholars than spelling champions), and third in the state in the high school math exam, was graduated from undergrad with honors, from grad school with a masters in math and law school attaining the level of Editor in Appellate Advocacy. While in law school I taught first year calculus to undergraduates.

This is irrelevant to the issues intrinsic with this WSJ Blog community as there is, as noted by our Pearls before swine poster, anger when personal matters involving "judges behaving badly" or the "DoJ not doing anything" or "the FBI running scared from a Kinmapper" (yes that is not a "dn" but an "nm" in my e-nom-de-genealogie) are used to make points on a given thread, for there are law students and lawyers who prefer that their future or present profession not be tarnished by the unmitigatable truth!

Dear Anon and stubborn defenders of self regulation by the legal industry

Obviously self-regulation is not working and the public interest is not being served. This is shown not only by this blog but also by many Internet sites and comments by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Bar Association questioned the success of self- regulation.

A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest A lawyer should exemplify the legal profession's ideals of public service Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer's responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer's own interest in remaining an ethical person while earning a satisfactory living. the lawyer's obligation. maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.

Many lawyers know that I was jailed without being accused of a crime or disrupting a court and that there were defense bills for secret conferences with judicial officers. Why didn't they protest this?

3:31 pm July 27, 2007

anon wrote:

"Obviously self-regulation is not working and the public interest is not being served."
-----------------
No, the interests of a woman who harasses people with dozens of frivolous lawsuits isn't being served.
Listen you obnoxious scoundrel, it's unjust that dozens of defendants have to pay lawyers to defend against your frivolous and instantly dismissed lawsuits.
I've wasted hours googling you and know of your background. Take, for example, the lawsuit you filed against the ABA.https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1283-63
Some poor clerk had to waste valuable time writing that opinion, and valuable money had to be spent on lawyers to defend against your action.
Now before you go off down kook avenue and accuse me of being a "defense agent" or a "conspirator," I'm not. I'm an average person who is appalled by your revolting behavior. In my opinion, someone like you is a danger to society. God Bless Judge Nottingham for throwing you in jail, and I hope the next judge does the same.

7:50 pm July 27, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Dear "anon" at 3:31
What insurance company wouldn't want to simply jail U.S. citizens rather than pay claims based on admitted facts, have summary judgment hearings, or have a jury trial?
D of Colorado 02-1950
Order Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation
This matter is before the court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed October 14, 2003. After an extensive, time-consuming analysis of the background and facts, the magistrate judge recommends that (1) the case be dismissed with prejudice 2) Plaintiff Kay Sieverding (and her husband) be required to pay all costs and attorney fees incurred by all defendants since January 30, 2003, and (3) plaintiffs be enjoined from filing further lawsuits based on the series of transactions underlying their complaint, unless plaintiffs are represented by counsel in any such lawsuits. Plaintiffs have objected to the recommendation. The objections suffer from the same defects as plaintiffs' other submissions. They are prolix, disorganized, incomprehensible and (to the extent that the court can discern any thread in the argument) legally twisted. I have conducted the requisite de novo of the issues, the record, and the recommendation. Based on this review, I have concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is Ordered as follows: 1.) The recommendation (#188) is accepted and adopted as this court's ruling on the case. All motions to dismiss are granted. 2.) Plaintiff's myriad motions for sanctions are all Granted. 3.) The case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 4.) Plaintiff Kay Sieverding (and her husband) shall pay all attorney fees and costs incurred by all defendants since January 30, 2003. 5.) Plaintiffs are hereby enjoined and prohibited from commencing litigation in this or any other court based on the series of transactions described in this case, unless they are represented by counsel. 6.) All other pending motions are denied as moot or meritless. 7.) The case is hereby recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for consideration of the attorney fees and costs to be awarded and a recommendation concerning those fees and costs. Dated this 19th day of March, 2004. By the Court Edward W. Nottingham.
Our objections were the maximum allowed number of pageswasn't that 10 pages?
We selected a jury trial. Do you think that Rule 52 is optional? In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon or is rule 65 optional No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrainedEvery order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained?
Since you have "wasted hours googling (me) and know of (my) background", why did filing a civil lawsuit make me an "obnoxious soundrel"?

11:49 pm July 27, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

A few minutes ago, I emailed to the ABA in house counsel and their counsel at White and Case, to the lawyers for Lloyds of London, Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, TIG insurance and all the other defense lawyers in my actions from the WSJ blog web site for this blog "email this article"
Dear defense counsel
"Please tell me, and the world, why I am an "obnoxious scoundrel" who deserves to be fined, jailed, lose my right to appear in court, etc. as Judge Nottingham's order does not state facts and laws, nor did that of the 10th Circuit "
so maybe they will state publicly in their own words why they asked the judge to put me in jail and why they think I should pay their bills. At least one of them is a former federal clerk, Christopher P. Beall, so he should have adequate communication skills to explain why I should be sanctioned even though it was apparently easier to get into law school when he went then it is now.

12:44 am July 28, 2007

I Calls Them As I Sees Them wrote:

Another "anon" who needs to be sent to b.a., bloggers anonymous:

"I've wasted hours googling you and know of your background. Take, for example, the lawsuit you filed against the ABA."
From
Comment by anon - July 27, 2007 at 3:31 pm

8:16 am July 28, 2007

anon wrote:

Kay,
I told you why what you do is wrong. You are a bully who harasses people through the court system. This is unjust because regardless of the frivolousness of your lawsuit, the defendants have to waste time, stress and money defending against it. Do you think that attorney at White & Case works for free? Do you know how much time it took to write that opinion explaining why your lawsuit against the ABA was frivolous?
What you're doing shows a disregard for the welfare of others. In googling you, I read that you were accused of physically attacking the neighbor who you later sued. You deny it, but based on your aggressive and bullying behavior in courts I think you did it. Having failed to get your way through physical bullying, you resorted to another form of bullying.
Again, I'm not a defense agent. I'm not affiliated in any way with any of the people you are suing. I'm not part of the perceived conspiracy against you. I'm just an average person who, unfortunately, learned of your dreadful existence and is trying to get you to understand how evil your behavior is.
As an independent observer, let me be clear about my opinion. You are not the good guy in any way. In my opinion you are a bully who wishes to harm others through the courts.
Unfortunately for you, thank God, we have decent people running our system who stopped you. In my opinion, the judge rightly dismissed your lawsuits and threw you in jail for refilling them, and hopefully the next judge will do the same.

8:18 am July 28, 2007

anon wrote:

12:44,
You're right. When you're googling and talking to Kay S, you might just be spending a little too much time on blogs.

People who can afford White & Case can run circles around poor pro se Kay.
You calling her a bully, is like Barbara Bush calling any of her boys, a boy genius.
Ridiculous and pathetic to not address the issue of whether her claims were with sufficient merit, and as this thread is on the foibles and flaws of judges, that should be done independently of the magistrate and the federal judge who quite naturally adopted the magistrate's findings.

On another case, this one before the highest court of Florida an order was entered that I claim all lawyers should respond to:

NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY
and be brave enough to at least say their law school (although we are bound to have many joking yokels absent a fuller identification or even with one).

My eight jurists saluted this statement in my disbarment trial order:

" Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."
.
The three times I objected to all other parties being heard orally, but me, with no motion much less any order distinguish my actions from the other lawyers, and the only one with in the last instance with admissible evidence for such a hearing, 300+ certified copies and affidavits of experts to present in defense of a dozen or two (yeah they were filed alleging repetitiously two and three and four times that they were sufficient for full summary judgment despite each being only really a motion for summary judgment on one or two counts)motions for summary judgment on one or another of the six counts in a then TEN year old litigation and seven year old case.
In addition to not allowing the opposing party to present the allowable evidence and show how the maps and the expert affidavits and the certified copies of county minutes requesting the continuation of the building of the ancient road), the court elected to rule without reviewing in the first instance all the evidence and then typed up the weird order and had it executed by the end of the day.

So again the statement by the jurist at trial approved by the seven justices of the Supreme Court of Florida was not the real circumstances. But it must be true:
EIGHT HIGH-FALUTIN Florida judges all signed off on it.
WILL ONE LAWYER AGREE WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL BLASPHEMY or any regular poster by their screen name so that we can tell who believes in a right to be heard (and a right to have the evidence reviewed, if the right to be heard will not be accorded all litigants, without cause), and who believes in the Star Chamber type process endorsed by the Justices of the Florida Supreme Court:
.
Yea or Nay:
" Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."
.
[Two sentences should not challenge even the most slow-witted of our anon/anonymous blogging establishment types}

9:49 am July 28, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

To anon at 8:16

You write: I read that you were accused of physically attacking the neighbor you later sued????? Where did you read that?
I sued for defamation and malicious prosecution. There are scans of the transcripts, police reports etc. at the D of Kansas where I filed for defamation. (I was forced to withdraw that lawsuit under duress of jail.
On August 31, 2000, Judge Joel Thompson asked Jane Bennett There has been no offensive touching? Jane Bennett answered no. She hasn't shoved, or pushed, or kicked, or anything like that? Jane Bennett Not me, no.
on August 31, 2000, Judge Thompson asked Jane Bennett She's (referring to Kay Sieverding) not following you around town, or anything like that? Jane Bennett answered, Uh, I don't believe so
Judge Joel Thompson asked Jane Bennett She's not calling you late at night (referring to Kay Sieverding). Jane Bennett replied She may have called me in the night years past. I can't remember the date. She called one time... that was like a couple of years ago
On September 6, 2000, Kay Sieverding asked Jane Bennett if they had any interaction between a planning department meeting when Kay Sieverding had suggested they go out for coffee in the winter of 2000 and August 29, 2000 and Jane Bennett answered, I don't recall interacting with you.
Marc Wilk, Jane Bennett's employee and witness, testified under oath. Kay Sieverding asked Marc Wilk when you saw me, did I seem like I was going about normal business, with the possible exception that I garden more than most people do?, Bennetts' employee and witness, answered, Well you know, yes.
Jane Bennett called the police on 8/26/00. The report signed by Jane Bennett said:
when (Jane Bennett) stopped at the stop sign at Pahwintah and Merrit, Kay started honking her horn. Kay came running down from her yard but did not cross onto their property. Kay kept yelling that her husband just can't break the law because he's council president. That Kay called her husband a (name starting with 'a'). Kay kept shouting phrases you're breaking the law, obey the constitution and you can't build that thing. (Kay) yelled something about violating the building codes. Kevin (Bennett) told Kay to leave. At that time she left.
The problem was that Jane Bennett's lawyer, Randall Klauzer said in county court on 9/6/00: 'The fact of the matter is that the molestation (of Jane Bennett) is, as the evidence, quite frankly, is unrefuted, is expanding, increasing, becoming more violent, becoming more involved (p 161, lines 20-22) I wasn't allowed to cross examine Jane Bennett's lawyer.
Judge Garrecht said obviously, Ms. Bennett has not been attacked, beaten, and her life hasn't been threatened. (Transcript CO Routt County 002180 Sept./6/00 page 161). Then he ruled I had molested Jane Bennett, but she didn't testify that I molested her nor did her witnesses and it wasn't in her complaint. I didn't get to cross-examine the judge either. He said it would be complex litigation and predicted that I wouldn't be able to find a constitutional lawyer who would be willing to sue the City of Steamboat Springs. So I figured that if I couldn't hire a constitutional lawyer I had to defend myself.
Why was my complaint against the ABA "frivolous" since you claim to know?
Both KinMapper and my case involved a road and local government. I wonder if Lloyds of London was involved with his case and he didn't know it.

10:16 am July 28, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

P.S. I can't remember calling Kevin Bennett an "a". I usually try not to use offensive language. The police didn't interview me, my son, or the next door neighbor. Even if I did call him an "a", that is not a crime.

2:56 pm July 28, 2007

anon wrote:

"Why was my complaint against the ABA frivolous since you claim to know?"
---------
Kay,
Some poor judge and his clerk wasted hours and hours explaining why your case was frivolous. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1283-63
You don't even read the judge's dismissal orders, before refiling your cases.
It's clear you don't have any appreciation for the harm you're doing to people by filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits, and you don't respect the court's orders, unless they side with you.
This makes you an anti-social and narcissistic bully of the worst kind.
I really don't know how else to explain this to you.

5:14 pm July 28, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

The courts are here as part of our taxes.
We pay our filing fees, we're entitled to the process due, exactly as described in the written rules of civil procedure. That includes a judgment that complies with rule 52.
Please list the filing numbers of the "dozens of lawsuits" and the reasons they were dismissed, since you claim to know all about my legal history.
As you wrote at 8:16 a.m., you "read" that I had "physically attacked" my neighbor. I asked you where you "read" that, but you didn't say, you just changed the subject.
Among other claims, I have current defamation per se claims, as you just demonstrated.
The record I quoted above is clearly no physical contact of any type. Furthermore I am a married woman.
Please supply a citation that says that courts can sua sponte issue non procedural orders that make something legal become illegal for one particular party or group?

8:04 pm July 28, 2007

anon, how long have you been a lawyer and in what areas do you practice? wrote:

anon, how long have you been a lawyer and in what areas do you practice?

8:56 pm July 28, 2007

anon wrote:

Kay,
It's right in the judge's opinion, which I provided you above. Did you even read the judge's opinion? It says the people you sued had previously gotten a restraining order against you. It also says that after getting your lawsuit dismissed, you responded by filing dozens of lawsuits in various courts across the country.
A filing fee doesn't give you the right to harm people with frivolous lawsuits. It costs you only $300 to file, but the people you attack have to spend thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dollars on lawyers to defend against your assault. It also costs them stress and time to deal with your harassment. Further, the judge has to waste time writing an opinion, like the one above.
Fortunately, you're not really a danger. Thankfully, our blessed judges dismissed your lawsuits, awarded your victims court costs and even threw you in jail once for your behavior. To me this is a system which works.
My only fascination is why you're not able to appreciate the harm you're doing. Do you have deluded fantasies of a seven figure settlement? Do you think the people awarded costs against you are suddenly going to drop their claim, because you file yet more frivolous lawsuits? Do you think any of your new victims are going to actually roll over for you because you paid a $300 filing fee?
That's not how the world works Kay. You need to give yourself a reality check before you wind up back in jail.
Now look, I'm really sick of explaining this to you. I'm only wasting my time in the hopes that it will get through to you and save you, and your victims, a lot of grief. Sit down with your husband and family and think realistically about the consequences of your actions, to your lives and the lives of your victims, and stop.

9:04 pm July 28, 2007

anon wrote:

8:04, I'm not a lawyer. A lawyer would love someone like Kay. Frivolous lawsuits = money in the bank + a sure win for your client.

1:05 am July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

So Anon, you're not a lawyer, you're anonymous, and you can't provide details to back up your accusations.
I quoted Judge Nottingham's order at 7:50. I sent it to the U.S. Supreme Court and Troy Cahill wrote back and said it was not an order. It doesn't comply with rule 65(d), there was no bond, and there was no hearing. The Col Supreme Court said that under such circumstances there must be a prohibition on enforcement.
Jane Bennett's injunction was issued on the basis that I molested her but the Colorado statute says that an injunction can only be issued on the basis of a complaint and her complaint did not say that I molested her. Since I emailed this blog to her current lawyer, Traci Van Pelt, she can giver her opinion as to whether there is any evidence that I molested her. I don't know of any evidence that I molested her since on the only date her lawyer said was at issue, 8/26/2000, we were 30 feet apart and she was with her husband and two construction workers. Since molest means sex, I'd like to think that if I had sex with Jane Bennett, which I didn't, that she would remember.
I don't have victims. I have defendants who cheated me of a trial on the merits.
Judges who have secret ex parte conferences and issue judgments that don't comply with rule 52 aren't blessed in my opinion, although they may be blessed in the opinion of insurance companies that sold insurance covering the events.
Since you are sick of explaining this and wasting (your) time, why don't you stop posting on my posts?
No one sued methere are no claims against me so stop trying to confuse the readers.
If the U.S. is a country under rule of law, why would I "end up back in jail" if I haven't committed a crime? In some countries, people are routinely sent to jail because someone with power wants to hurt them, but that's not supposed to happen in America.
What is supposed to happen when you file a lawsuit in the U.S., is not that your "victims roll over" or don't "roll over". What's supposed to happen is a transparent process where they file a reply that stipulates to or contests the facts and then everything is supposed to proceed exactly according to the rules of civil procedure.

1:20 am July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

P.S. Traci Van Pelt's phone number is 303-480-0400. Call her and ask for any evidence that I "molested" Jane Bennett as Jane Bennett's lawyer, Randall Klauzer, claimed in county court. Klazuer is also Van Pelt's client. I sent an interrogatory with that question but after the defense had a secret conference with former Magistrate Schlatter, he said they didn't have to answer. Secret conferences with magistrates--What has happened to the rule of law in America? If there is to be an injunction, the basis is not supposed to be secret.

7:05 am July 29, 2007

KinMapper wrote:

Kav Sieverding, you had better be mistaken for there can be no unannounced private and secret conference by a party with the sitting jurist on a case.
.
Now I know I had that happen by three appellate judges but that was for tea and crumpets or the like and they did not like the thought of me the Appellant pro se and a recently suspended member of the Florida Bar at that (I am now disbarred for thinking judges can rule prior to hearing the evidence primarily) being allowed in their private presence. True the several counsel for the appellees might have discussed what a burden the case had become for the county and the judges (who had betrayed their oaths of office to comply with the constitution, but tea and crumpets were the goal).

So since your supposed secret meeting served no refreshments it would clearly be wrong, if you were not given prior notice!

And be advised TRO can be issued in secret but only when there is evidence of a looming threat that a TRO can protect you from (none can, but there is that specious presumption) and you have said no affidavit of molestation of the scary sort was ever filed.

I had an occasion where a TRO was sought by the wife, refused because most all the claims added up to was that the estranged husband had calmly disagreed with much of what the angry wife said and did so in her new home. Thus for one of the few times, a TRO on domestic violence did not immediately get issued since there was no claim of fear of person or of prior threats or actions against the person.

7:08 am July 29, 2007

KinMapper on a second part of KS last post wrote:

Lawyer's claims are not testimony, but false claims in open court by an officer of the court such as a lawyer are ethical breaches.
You seem to be claiming that that lawyer committed such misconduct in county court.
.
The bar does not always allow a lawyer to go unprotected from his misconduct, particularly when the lawyer indicates you are a threat to the system, argumentum ad hominem style.

7:10 am July 29, 2007

KinMapper corrects Kinmapper with a NOT and a rephrasing wrote:

(I am now disbarred primarily for thinking judges can NOT rule, prior to hearing the evidence)

7:14 am July 29, 2007

KinMapper asks Anon to answer per his name anon!! & others with screen courage to Yea it or Nay it! wrote:

Yea or Nay:
Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing.
.
[Two sentences should not challenge even the most slow-witted of our anon/anonymous blogging establishment types. Yea to agree with the claims, Nay to agree with Respondent.]

9:02 am July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Kin
I did complain to the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel that Randall Klauzer said in open court that I "molested" Jane Bennett even though she said there was no offensive touching and she couldn't remember interfacing with me, but Matt Samuelson said that these misrepresentations were allowed conduct by an "advocate". He also said it is all right for an advocate to use violence and intimidation to deter and delay presentment in court. And as far as the defense bills for ex parte conferences, David Brougham said that Matt Samuelson said that is all right for an advocate too.
There are downloadable scans of the bills for the secret conferences with federal judges and clerks on Pacer at D of Colorado 02-1950 04/12/07 1006. Such as:
8/15/05 prepared final revisions and filed electronically with U.S. District Court for D.C.telephone call from Judges Chambers re motion for extension of time (e 2) (Bill from O'Brien Butler McConihie and Schaefer to Faegre and Benson)
10/27/04 revise letters to Judge Tunheim; discussion with M. Chester and J. Walborn (former clerks for Judge Tunheim) (e35 Jon Borger Faegre to Schaefer at O'Brien Bulter McConihie and Schaeffer in D.C.)
On 2/12/03,:Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane Bennett and many city defendants. Telephone call to Dave Broughamdiscussed pleadings from Wisconsin court and Sieverding letter. Conference call to Magistrate Schlatter. Further discussion with Brougham on notice letter to Sieverding.(e86, Anthony Lettunich to City of Steamboat Springs CO)
8/15/03 Confer with court regarding status of pending motions and timing of ruling. (e58 David Brougham to Underwriters at Lloyd's London)
Kin, did you get disbarred for complaining about the conference your opposing counsel had with the judge that they said you couldn't go to?
I think that the only reason that the 10th Circuit dismissed my 02-1950 action, imposed an injunction on me for doing something legal with prior warning, awarded attorney fee shifting without a statute or rule being cited by either the court or the defense, and recently let me be put in jail for 22 days without a charge that a crime was committed or an Act of Congress violated while they had my habeas motion in their files but refused to rule on it, was just to punish me for complaining about the ex parte conferences. I sent the 10th Circuit copies of the defense bills for ex parte conferences on multiple occasions. I quoted them and I attached the bills for secret ex parte conferences and not once did they even acknowledge the bills. Nor did they let me have any oral conferences, probably because they knew that I would complain about the defense bills for secret ex parte conferences. I hope that other federal and state courts don't routinely have secret ex parte conferences. Maybe when a lawyer suspects there are secret ex parte conferences, he just ignores it to not offend the court so that he doesn't jeopardize his career and business. But for me, these claims are super important. I guess I should put up a web site with the verified scanned documents of the bills for the secret ex parte conferences with federal judicial personnel so that people don't have to pay Pacer to download them from D of Col 02-1950 document 1006. Do you think that lawyers paid by Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda usually or just occassionally have secret ex parte conferences with magistrates, judges, and clerks?

2:52 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper wrote:

"Matt Samuelson said that these misrepresentations were allowed conduct by an advocate. He also said it is all right for an advocate to use violence and intimidation to deter and delay presentment in court. And as far as the defense bills for ex parte conferences, David Brougham said that Matt Samuelson said that is all right for an advocate too."

NOne of this is in writing of course just as no lawyer or law student will affix their "Yea" to the horrendous two sentences which I should note were written by a jurist whose biography's still states the man is a "Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers", but no one rises to confirm those two statements nor to respond.
All for a response to your post for now.

2:57 pm July 29, 2007

Ex Parte Conferences are the exception, by some rule of exception--KinMapper wrote:

Judges having secret ex parte conferences with only some of the parties or their counsel no matter who they be in not allowed. However under the federal or state rules there are several instances where non-secret ex parte conferences are allowed--in state court: one is domestic violence claims and a TRO almost always results, except to my knowledge against me. Those false claims of a domestic assault were dropped without any attempt at a hearing, but the front of my file remained marked in purple: See Domestic Assault File, even though the "victim" refused to go forward at the hearing that I got scheduled. Games are played and sanctions seldom result like they should.

3:08 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper on another exception to ex parte communication prohibition wrote:

Administrative calls are another exception but each side must tread very carefully there. I once was called by the senior Probate Judge in Dade (Miami-Dade now) County, after I refused his secretary's demands also by phone that I get my clients in PB County to act to incapacitate an elderly person in a nursing home (when that person and assets were fully protected by my client, her only child). Only later did I learn that this unique set of phone calls were a way to generate funds for Dade lawyers including the son of a retired Dade county judge.
What was done there was shocking, but lawful, but my clients, who were Jewish, knew who they were dealing with when they saw what I had never seen before in a judges chambers: a nice large Christian Bible set for each of us to observe.
.
I, as a Christian with much understanding of pogroms and centuries of history, apologized repeatedly on the long drive back to PB County to them for hypocrite Christian judges who shill for lawyers to get them lucrative guardianships and committee positions at $200 or $250 an hour and who give too much indicia for their purpose to be otherwise.
.
Pathetically the retired judge came by chambers to say hello before his son received his appointment to automatic cash duties.
.
The near absolute power of these two judges truly corrupted the two judges and the lawyer son!! Each of the judges are weirdly looked upon with honor as jurists rather than the petty conmen they should be called.

3:20 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper wrote:

Some of the contacts may be explainable as this might be, but this one jumped out as I would wonder who was on the conference call with the Federal Magistrate:

"Conference call to Magistrate Schlatter."

There is a red flag here.

3:25 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper on Judges Behaving Badly wrote:

In context what the judges have done this decade to law student clerk candidates, as recounted in the post above, is consistent but are modest administrative harms compared to more permanent horror inflicted in the juridical process by other judges, maybe mine and I have many who have committed clear and obvious prima facie criminal acts maybe Kay Sieverding maybe others---or maybe none as
Judges are our Gods and
Gods can never be found to be wrong.

The 10th Circuit has since held that they have no authority to jail people for filing civil lawsuits in other circuits. I don't believe there is a basis in law for jailing anyone for filing anything non fraudulent in any court. I think that is criminal witness intimidation as prohibited by U.S.C. title 18 chapter 74 section 1512. I think I am legally defined as a crime victim.
-------------
I do not know, but I would like a true lawyer, I am not admitted to any bar, and not an anonymous, maybe-lawyer to comment on the likelihood of the validity of her legal theory stated here out of context and in her immediately prior post in context. [KinMapper]

3:55 pm July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

to KinMapper at 3:20 and 3:25. The secret conference call with Magistrate Schlatter was with David Brougham and Anthony Lettunich, the defense counsel for the public defendants and a defendant lawyer, ( part-time city attorney). I didn't understand your 3:25 comment--too cryptic for me.
To: 3:29.
No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress. TITLE 18 PART III CHAPTER 301 § 4001. Limitation on detention; control of prisons". We don't have to prove our right not to be imprisoned without the various regulations of the rules of criminal procedure. Title 18 has additional laws on this. The rules of criminal procedure are supposed to apply to civil hearings as civil procedures are not listed as an exception in the statute. The same federal clerks are involved with both criminal and civil matters aren't they?

4:42 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper speculating on civil and criminal contempt wrote:

No civil and criminal contempt are managed by precedent differently than a standard crime outisde the court proceedings. It is a complicated area that I have avoided, for only once was I referred for contempt and that was by a third judge of three judges who presided over what should have been an open and shut case of an ancient road that was never abandoned, but development needs caused St. Johns County to crudely abandon the road by corrupting the juridical process from stem to stern.

The judge subpoenaed my former client than elected not to allow any testimony from her and allowed no evidence to be presented at the Motion to Show Cause, thus if I had been jailed it would have been criminal on her part, and the only evidence filed was by me, as a ready witness, in the form of an Affidavit, as this judge had already displayed a willingness to rule prior to hearing arguments by those entitled to give them, particularly myself who lost the right to trial on my attempt to prove the ancient road that was provable, by the collected evidence, not by the appropriate standard of preponderance of the evidence, but by evidence sufficient to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt at the location claimed. This would have raised the value of the old farm by a factor of 10 or more.
.
Ultimately they bought out my former client at 7 or 8 times his purchase price for the old farm, with the next act of my client was to destroy all his files, all my files, all my files and all my other property in a large storage shed, illegally and unlawfully to stop the possibility of federal authorities revisiting the crime, not likely but destroy and other owners would not have access.
.
All evidence filed was petitioned by my former client to be withdrawn. It is possible that this was an attempt at obstruction of justice as was certainly also the case as to the destruction of my files and property and his research on the ancient road. The FBI still is mute and immobile. They will not even try to shut me up!!
.
But back to civil and criminal contempt hearings, civil contempt is done quickly and by the very judge involved. If the matter is covered in judge-litigant animosity, the wise judge recuses himself prior to the hearing held to determine whether criminal contempt as occurred and what sentence including jail time should be inflicted. However federal judges probably have wide latitude in making such recusals.
The 3:25 comment was context: what judges do when they incarcerate folks or get them to be found evil by their bar, and do so with no good faith, is SO MUCH more serious behaving-badly than the original article's concerns.
.
The original article does show that judges can be asses who ought to pay the price for their uncivil conduct as mentioned in the article and their unlawful conduct, if my claims are correct or similarly if your claims are correct.
But we all know that to make the corrupt system impervious to correction that:
"Judges are our Gods and
Gods can never be found to be wrong."
Even when they commit criminal acts the FBI are the three monkeys of Nikko, such as displayed at:http://www.care2.com/c2c/photos/view/49/682686654/Funny_Stuff_001/MonkeySeeHearSpeak.gif.html

see none, hear none, speak nothing!!

5:55 pm July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

I followed the written law and also the rules of professional conduct even though I am not a lawyer so I just don't understand how I could be sanctioned in any way. I wasn't even accused of misrepresenting facts or misquoting laws and I tried to be efficient also. I don't understand why I was denied my right to represent myself, fined $103,000 (a lot of money), and put in jail 3 times. I thought that if you tell the truth and are sincere and do research on the laws and procedures, you should be "safe" in court.

7:48 pm July 29, 2007

KinMapper wrote:

That last sentence is clearly not true, but without almost day by day review one can not tell how far out on the limb the judicial parts and the lawyer parts of the game went, it at all.
.
In one case of import, I was denied my case to file, without another lawyer's certification, even though I was not even provided the motion nor provided a notice of hearing and the motion was done by pleadings filed by a NON-PARTY to the case!!!
.
Shocking but corruption can turn an angel into a corpse and make devils of those who elect to survive.

11:12 pm July 29, 2007

Kay Sieverding wrote:

Dear Kin
That was an injunction right? In Colorado, in Stull, in 1958 the Col Supreme Court ruled that there is an absolute prohibition on enforcement of an injunction issued without Rule 65 procedure. I found this just be searching on Rule 65 and going back in time. There were a lot of cases about injunctions when union law was being litigated.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

First Amendment advocates and major media companies are urging a federal appeals court to throw out a defamation judgment against "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle that entitled former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura to more than $1 million of the royalties from the book.

A federal jury in Los Angeles on Tuesday ordered singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to pay about $7.4 million to the family of Marvin Gaye, after finding the duo’s 2013 hit song “Blurred Lines” copied parts of Mr. Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up.”